Wings over Sealand - The players and the game. Thanks ASeven.Games journalism is terrible because gamers are getting what they're prepared to pay for. As said a year ago, games journalists are merely serving the people who pay the bills, and that that isn't the readers any more, because they demand all their journalism for free. If you're not even prepared to pay peanuts, you're going to get something less than monkeys. Though on the upside, you'll at least get a near-infinite supply of them, prepared to hammer away at their infinite typewriters for the sheer thrill of a review copy and a free t-shirt or two until they either get their own PR job or burn out, to be replaced from a willing cast of millions of fresh faces.

(Those last two links, incidentally, come from a poorly-written fanblog that somehow got nominated for a GMA. It's difficult to imagine how it found itself elevated to such dizzy heights, at an event mainly voted for by PR people. Oh, wait, no it isn't.)

Until that changes, Intent Media and their ilk will control games journalism, and no criticism from naive outsider idealists like Robert Florence will be permitted.

Prez wrote on Nov 1, 2012, 18:43:Is this guy for real? It's the readers' fault? Jesus tap-dancing Christ, I've seen it all now.

Eh while I wouldn't put the loin's share of blame on readers, there's enough blame for everyone to go around.

And readers do reward companies that engage in shenanigans. If you're the type that considers day-one purchases, the pre-launch review is a big deal for you probably, and so you reward companies that butter up game publishers in order to get that advanced shit.

So I think the entire industry clue to earring shares some of the blame pie.

I can't buy the "We can't afford to tell you the truth because you won't pony up the chedda' for it!" argument, which is what the author is pitching. That's different from your contention that readers aren't discriminating enough in most cases (which I do agree with). He has the nerve to call Robert Florence a naive outsider because he DARES to question the status quo. If I was Robert Florence, I'd tell this author to go fuck himself.

As an aside, I'm just curious - what does "clue to earring" mean?

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” - Mahatma Gandhi

Prez wrote on Nov 1, 2012, 18:43:Is this guy for real? It's the readers' fault? Jesus tap-dancing Christ, I've seen it all now.

Eh while I wouldn't put the loin's share of blame on readers, there's enough blame for everyone to go around.

And readers do reward companies that engage in shenanigans. If you're the type that considers day-one purchases, the pre-launch review is a big deal for you probably, and so you reward companies that butter up game publishers in order to get that advanced shit.

So I think the entire industry clue to earring shares some of the blame pie.

Regardless, this acts like it's something new. It's always been ads driving game journalism. Always. This isn't from pageclicks, 10 years ago it was just paper ads.

Ads, of course. But as you say, that's the case with most forms of journalism. The author was trying to imply that the game companies themselves were directly financing the reviewers' sites, which obviously isn't true.

Moreover, the author is actually missing the point. The complaint wasn't about sites, it was about individuals. I'm pretty sure that in "mainstream" journalism if someone were a food critic, say, having them accepting gifts of food from eateries would be considered inducing bias as well.

Yeah, much like how many movie critics refuse to take anything other than viewings from film companies (others will take paid trips.)But that's not the issue so much here. Someone gets a free PS3. Big deal. In the grand scheme the individual is meaningless. It's the system that is a problem.

Damn near every dollar a game review entity receives comes from a game production company, be it a studio or a publisher. There really is no other revenue stream. So who cares about one PS3 when the entire organization is funded by the game company? Every paycheck comes from them.

Regardless, this acts like it's something new. It's always been ads driving game journalism. Always. This isn't from pageclicks, 10 years ago it was just paper ads.

Ads, of course. But as you say, that's the case with most forms of journalism. The author was trying to imply that the game companies themselves were directly financing the reviewers' sites, which obviously isn't true.

Moreover, the author is actually missing the point. The complaint wasn't about sites, it was about individuals. I'm pretty sure that in "mainstream" journalism if someone were a food critic, say, having them accepting gifts of food from eateries would be considered inducing bias as well.

If you're a website whose revenue is entirely based on pageviews and clicks

How they can go from that to saying that readers aren't paying the bills, I don't know. Do they think those pageviews and clicks are coming from the companies?

But who is the money coming from?

Regardless, this acts like it's something new. It's always been ads driving game journalism. Always. This isn't from pageclicks, 10 years ago it was just paper ads.

No change. Industry is as it always was. People are more aware now, and given how spread out and easy to enter this industry, some people find their way in that are far more susceptible. But that influence was always around.

Exactly, when it comes to games journalism this has always been par for the course. This isn't some situation that has developed over time.

If you're a website whose revenue is entirely based on pageviews and clicks

How they can go from that to saying that readers aren't paying the bills, I don't know. Do they think those pageviews and clicks are coming from the companies?

But who is the money coming from?

Regardless, this acts like it's something new. It's always been ads driving game journalism. Always. This isn't from pageclicks, 10 years ago it was just paper ads.

No change. Industry is as it always was. People are more aware now, and given how spread out and easy to enter this industry, some people find their way in that are far more susceptible. But that influence was always around.

I used to write for a big MMO website. Even when I wrote bad things about games, people still accused me of being on the take. It is what it is. People bitch and moan about journalistic integrity, but then they go and give page hits to sites that they complain about anyway.

Article is more than a little disingenuous. The fundamental issue isn't that gamers won't pay for quality news, it's that gaming press made their business model directly dependent on publishers. The reason most movie and music reviews don't have the same problem is that they belong a larger company whose advertising revenue model is diversified. They also have the benefit of being able to name and shame companies who attempt to exert pressure or influence content using other outlets. Finally the traditional press typically bands together on things that threaten their ecosystem unlike the gaming press where the instinct is to keep quiet or side with the publisher.

Don't blame it on gamers, this is their shitty system that they evolved. It's easy to argue media consumption standards are at an all time low when it comes to the general public but that doesn't really solve anything. When I see quality reviews in a reputable source that can sustain itself even if it angers Ubisoft by giving Assassin's Creed III an 8 then I will throw money at that.